test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

How would you modify ISA and CCA to have them not be the joke of STO any more?

135

Comments

  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    valoreah wrote: »
    I would not change a thing about them.

    If you are finding a lack of teamplay or a DPS monster 1 shotting everything in the public queues, take the time to make friends and run private matches. You'll never experience those issues again. Zero Dev time required.
    Well, I have seen some posters suggest that there is some kind of rotating "que of the day/week" system where a handful of ques get higher rewards and choice of marks boxes. That seems kinda nice. Get people playing some of the other content on a regular basis might start a routine where a larger variety of ques are played.

    That's a fun idea and we know it would work as it already does kind of act the same way with "upgrade weekends" and the "events" and so on and so forth. We know they have the technology to do this as there already is a "Featured Event" part of the queue. Would certainly be worth a try to see if people would be motivated to hop into those sticky messes that were the Undine maps again.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    e30ernest wrote: »
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Would you also find them fun if they offered only 1/15th of the present rewards?

    I'll be honest, I do not play these maps for the rewards. They can have 0 rewards and I'd still play them. For me, the fun in them is trying to find ways to complete them faster. They are nothing more than testing grounds for me, just two of several maps I use to test my builds.
    To me, there's a difference between quick with effort, and instant with no effort.
    So what you really want is free, instant rewards then?

    It's funny you say that. But for the people that are actually the ones speeding up the runs to that level, it actually takes a lot of effort and precision to get it down to that level. For me, it is so much easier to run a 20 minute long ISA than it is to push it down to 2 minutes. It's easier to run a 5 minute CCA, than it is to push it down to 30 seconds.

    Fast really doesn't equate to being easy nor effortless.

    I would go as far as saying everything in this game is easy if you take your time and don't push the boundaries of piloting and ship performance. Even what the OP is suggesting is easy. It'll only make the game run longer. It would still be easy if players don't attempt to rush headlong and try to push for high scores.
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Would you entertain the possibility that all the other queues are dead because ISA and CCA suck up most of the for-reward players?

    I do not think the state of the other queues have anything to do with ISA and CCA. There is simply so much more sources of easy rewards outside of the queues. You've got the various BZs, the Admiralty system as well as single player missions. Heck, if I want Dil (which to me is the only reward that counts at end game), the STFs are a very inefficient means to get that.

    The game is easy because no matter how you make NPCs tougher to kill, it doesn't require you to actually push your performance and there are no real stakes. You can die multiple times and that's ok. In the end, you'll still get your rewards. You can even fail a mission entirely and it won't affect anything in the game. There are no consequences for failure.

    Want to make them difficult? Buff the NPCs then put a short time limit to complete everything, or else you get 0 reward. That way, dying creates a problem for the team trying to make the timer and everyone is forced to fly at the edge of their performance envelopes while dealing with harder-hitting, tough-hulled NPCs.

    For example, buff ISE so the Borg have FBP, use TacTeam and even make them adapt, then slap a 5-minute timer to complete the map before they destroy the Starbase. In CCE, buff the Tholians, give the CE it's healing back then slap a 5-minute timer before it eats the planet. That should make it tougher since you'll have to have good gear, use everything in your arsenal to get around their buffs, survive their harder firepower and fly with precision and speed to deal the damage to make the timers.

    However, while I do know I'd personally enjoy a more challenging game, I do think making the queues tougher would be a bad idea. People will simply shift to easier, more casual ways to play the game because like it or not, STO is pretty much a casual game with mostly casual players who just want to relax and pew-pew their way around a Star Trek theme park.


    So many good points in this post! "My God It's Full of Stars!"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    I would not mind if it was less of a revamp to the borg stf, and more a revamp of the borg specifically. Like giving back their adaption ability in a form of both a debuff they apply to targets, and a buff they gain from being attacked that stacks up over time, while also having methods/counters in the form of both boff an career abilities that allow the player slow or negate their adaption progress.

    For instance if you made it that as Borg ships fire on a target they gain a stacking debuff that is applied to the target of their energy weapons, which would increase the damage or shield bypassing of their weapons on that target's shield type (Resilient, regenerative, and such), also the Borg ships could gain a stacking buff that improves their resistance against the primary/highest damage energy type being used against them. Now you could also make it that these sets of buffs, as well as debuffs could be reduced/slowed/negated by the use of different boff abilities or captain abilities. Also you could make it that after the player/s have fully wiped these buffs, and debuffs than the Borg have a period of time they are locked out of adapting again. With such a change it would give each career both captain, and boff wise more value an use thru how thy can help the group outside their dps.

    I think for cca it would be interesting if they made it that the crystalline entity had it's stats (hp, resistances, damage output, and such) tied to the number of Tholian ships that are active in the area. While also giving the Tholian ships some buffs, as well as heals they can use on the entity kinda like how the op described and would make the Tholians an impromptu objective.
  • nickodaemusnickodaemus Member Posts: 711 Arc User
    Before it was changed into its current system, there was a change - and people screamed. They had to fix it because folks found it too difficult to achieve the optionals & get the most desired rewards, chiefly when running it with a pug. It was kind of a mess. I just don't like it when they take things that are doing ok & may even be fun as is, and make them into a mess.

    With the revamp coming and them already having 3 difficulty options, I'd be ok with them leaving it alone for a while.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    I always found the idea of the optional failing you in the stfs, unless you failed too many (like if you failed two in advanced), was weird though an interesting idea implemented abit too harshly in a broad sense. I thought it would have been better to remove the elite marks from the rewards given for completing the que (maybe keep the auto elite mark on elite), but that you would gain elite marks for completing the optionals in the mission up to a pre-set cap based on the difficulty rating. This would make it that players could get the elite marks in all of the difficulties, while also rewarding players for learning the objectives an how to do the mission (to me right now the bonus marks is just not enough of a reward for competing the optionals), but that the higher difficulties have an added bonus of getting more elite marks per run than the advanced or reg runs.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    asuran14 wrote: »
    I always found the idea of the optional failing you in the stfs, unless you failed too many (like if you failed two in advanced), was weird though an interesting idea implemented abit too harshly in a broad sense.
    Yeah, no s$%#. That's because the fail conditions weren't optional.

    The fail conditions were one of the best things ever to happen to this game that, thanks to whiners and their "optional" nonsense, were rolled back to autowin again.
    Before it was changed into its current system, there was a change - and people screamed. They had to fix it because folks found it too difficult to achieve the optionals & get the most desired rewards, chiefly when running it with a pug.
    They didn't have to "fix" it. They could've and should've told the whiners to go play Normal if they can't handle Advanced. Because that's what difficulty settings are (supposed to be) about, having easier settings for weaker players and harder settings for stronger ones.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    warpangel wrote: »
    They could've and should've told the whiners to go play Normal if they can't handle Advanced. Because that's what difficulty settings are (supposed to be) about, having easier settings for weaker players and harder settings for stronger ones.

    When that happens and everyone but you and a few others leave to go play something more fun and casual, then what?

    Edit: And I don't mean leave the game, I just mean leave that queue, because I can go run story missions, foundry missions, play dabo, visit my bridge and have my DOFFs put on a rendition of Hamlet errrrrrry single day and never again return to an STF. Like cashmeonspacedock or something bro! I'm likely not the only one. ;)

    Post edited by snoggymack22 on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • nickodaemusnickodaemus Member Posts: 711 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    Before it was changed into its current system, there was a change - and people screamed. They had to fix it because folks found it too difficult to achieve the optionals & get the most desired rewards, chiefly when running it with a pug.
    They didn't have to "fix" it. They could've and should've told the whiners to go play Normal if they can't handle Advanced. Because that's what difficulty settings are (supposed to be) about, having easier settings for weaker players and harder settings for stronger ones.

    No arguments here, though I could have explained it better to avoid giving the impression that I didn't care for the changes. I only had issues with it when pugging, and I only pugged it when there weren't enough fleeties on for us to run our own. I learned it during the "10% rule" days, and had several hundred runs under my belt before it was changed & then "fixed."

    Also why I think it's fine now as is.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    asuran14 wrote: »
    I always found the idea of the optional failing you in the stfs, unless you failed too many (like if you failed two in advanced), was weird though an interesting idea implemented abit too harshly in a broad sense.
    Yeah, no s$%#. That's because the fail conditions weren't optional.

    The fail conditions were one of the best things ever to happen to this game that, thanks to whiners and their "optional" nonsense, were rolled back to autowin again.

    First off chill out. An no they were optional objectives still in the mind of the players, since they never changed the objective text from optional to mandatory as you did the higher content to reflect that change, as such many players just assumed they were still optional. If you make a change that turns a previously optional objective into a mandatory one, than you change the text to reflect that fact.

    Also I am not against having you auto fail stfs if you miss objectives, but not going from being able to mess all of them an succeed to you miss one optional an it auto fails you within one difficulty rating. An you would have freaking known that if you read the post over going apeshit over part of a post that you took out of context. They should have implemented the auto fail system better, and made it that in normal you can fail all optionals an still finish the stf, then had it that in advanced you needed to succeed at least 2/3d if of the optionals, and finally have elite be you auto fail if you miss even one optional.

    As said the idea of it is good and interesting, but the implementation was half assed an harsher than it needed to be, most of all going from auto-win in normal to single failure in advanced fails you completely.
  • ikonn#1068 ikonn Member Posts: 1,448 Arc User
    Quick fix for CCN and CCA, make it a 5-person queue instead of a 10-person. It won't solve everything, but will make it at least more of a challenge.

    ISA, IMO could use more damage resistance to the NPCs AND the structures they are defending.

    But as stated by another poster, probably best to see how the Balancing issues affect namely these 2 queues before making further suggestions
    -AoP- Warrior's Blood (KDF Armada) / -AoP- Qu' raD qulbo'Degh / -AoP- Project Phoenix
    Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    How would you make ISA and CCA last long enough to be worth the rewards they currently offer?


    My approach for ISA would be:
    • to increase the number of picket ships at the start to one tac cube, two reglar cubes, four spheres and eight probes. This is supposed to be an attempt to take over not only a starbase, but to establish a staging area for a large-scale invasion into Alliance space, and given the size of the Collective, a few more ships are hardly too much for such an attempt.
    • Next, I would have the nanite spheres for both sides show up about 30 seconds after the fighting starts - obviously the Borg would call for reinforcements as soon as it becomes obvious that those five ships aren't ordinary Alliance vessels, but have special captains. The Borg will then continue to send in nanite spheres (plus escorts) to keep the gate alive until the gate is destroyed.
    • In additon, the Nanite Transformers should be armed with plasma torpedos (into all arcs) and Torpedo Spread 3 and able to use a few active abilities like Feedback Pulse, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Brace For Impact, Hazard Emitters and Polarize Hull.
    • After a set time period of 10 minutes (if the gate still lives by then), I'd let the end boss enter the system through the transwarp gate - but not a tactical cube, but an Unimatrix ship with two tac cubes, four regular cubes, eight spheres and sixteen probes as escort fleet.
    • The optionals would have to be changed, of course: The first optional would be to destroy at least one nanite transformer before the main Borg force (the Unimatrix ship) arrives. The second optional would be to destroy the gate within five minutes after the Unimatrix ship arrives. Mission success would be to wipe the system of any Borg craft.

    For CCA, my approach would be:
    • The Tholians are obviously herding Crystalline entities into Alliance space. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that they heal and buff their beast? I'd give their ships healing and buffing to such an extent that they can, if not stopped, negate about 150 thousand points of damage per second. That way, destroying a significant part of the Tholian task force would be required. In addition, a second, larger Tholian task force would arrive 10 minutes after the mission begins.
    • The Crystalline Entity would no longer go into absorption mode when it reaches 66 and 33 percent of its hull, but after a set amount of time of 60 seconds. The radiation blast would be changed: It would be one blast of 200,000 points of damage, followed by a subnucleonic carrier wave, followed by second blast of 200,000 points of damage per target. Tholians would, of course, be immune to it. Also, its hull resistances and hitpoints would have to be adjusted upwards, to make sure the entity survives at least long enough to spit out three blasts.
    • The optional would be to defeat the entity before Tholian reinforcements arrive (ending the mission).

    How would you make these queues interesting again? Or would you object to any changes? If so, why?

    Yeah I guess you don't recall what a fiasco they were when time gated back when DR came out. Only things that should be time gated are Elite quques. Also ISA is a intermediate step for players advancing that are over equiped for normal but still not up to speed for elite. Your Idea would effectivly keep newer players from ever being able to finish an ISA and turn it into a blood bath for them and drive them away from the game or PVE quques creating even more ghost towns in the quques.
  • carasucia83carasucia83 Member Posts: 567 Arc User
    You mean apart from adding back elites so a couple of buddies can get thier Borg STF titles?

    ISA:
    Return of the EPtE probes.

    Have the cubes above the transformers move around.

    Put shields on gateways, transformers etc.

    Adaptive borg shielding (scaling per shot from 25%-70%) on all things borg (clearable with SNB but with a lock out of 30-60 sec or so) that gives a scaling (shield) res against all the things - Higher cap shields.

    Scaling science res too (also clearable) - so each control/drain/exotic ability increases borg res a bit to them too - so GW will give them +10 res to CrtlX, TKR to DrainX and all exotics give +5% res per tic? IDK, but something.

    They are the Borg, you will be assimilated, and all that jazz? Like, other NPCs have immunity cheese. The Borg should AT LEAST adapt, right?

    CCA:

    Meh. Buffs all round to all the things.

    Make the absorption mechanic heal the entity for all damage types. So like, really, really stop shooting it. Give it an overpowered FBP with a nasty DoT effect too so that folks who DO keep shooting it will either die or have to run away.

    Across the board though, stuff all the NPCs do ought be generally more noticable. Iconian cheese was a good step in that direction.

    Like for example, I typically have around 120 DrainX, and the Voth drain doesn't even take away the green on my power levels, stuff like that. I lose maybe 3(x4) power. HP and ShCap with a bit of Res buffing was OK for a short term solution, but it would go a long way to making the game far more interesting if the AI used powers that were much more effective in general. ISA (and all non-elite borg) and CCA are kind of just the tip of the iceberg.

    That said, horses for course though right? I mean, Normal should be easy, Advanced tricky, and Elite 'end-game' - like, 'I haz all the things, come at me brah'

    "So my fun is wrong?"

    No. Your fun makes everyone else's fun wrong by default.
  • groomofweirdgroomofweird Member Posts: 1,045 Arc User
    Add elite versions, then you can make them as badassed as you like.
    Nimoysig1_zpsr79joxz3.jpg
    "If this will be our end, then I will have them make SUCH an end as to be worthy of rememberance! Out of torpedos you say?! Find me the ferengi!".
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    asuran14 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    asuran14 wrote: »
    I always found the idea of the optional failing you in the stfs, unless you failed too many (like if you failed two in advanced), was weird though an interesting idea implemented abit too harshly in a broad sense.
    Yeah, no s$%#. That's because the fail conditions weren't optional.

    The fail conditions were one of the best things ever to happen to this game that, thanks to whiners and their "optional" nonsense, were rolled back to autowin again.

    First off chill out. An no they were optional objectives still in the mind of the players, since they never changed the objective text from optional to mandatory as you did the higher content to reflect that change, as such many players just assumed they were still optional. If you make a change that turns a previously optional objective into a mandatory one, than you change the text to reflect that fact.
    I'm pretty sure they DID change the text, but of course it's impossible to confirm now that the fail conditions are long gone.

    I certainly never had any trouble telling which objectives were optional and which ones were not.
    Also I am not against having you auto fail stfs if you miss objectives, but not going from being able to mess all of them an succeed to you miss one optional an it auto fails you within one difficulty rating. An you would have freaking known that if you read the post over going apeshit over part of a post that you took out of context. They should have implemented the auto fail system better, and made it that in normal you can fail all optionals an still finish the stf, then had it that in advanced you needed to succeed at least 2/3d if of the optionals, and finally have elite be you auto fail if you miss even one optional.
    And there we have the other nonsense buzzword "auto fail." What? As opposed to manually failing the mission? What does that even mean?

    Failing a required objective fails the mission. Failing an optional does not. Exactly as it should be. What you describe is how it was, except without using the word "optional." Normal had no required objectives, Advanced had one or two, Elite had more. People complained about the required objectives existing at all, because apparently it's oh so horrible to play a videogame where you might actually lose if you're not good enough. And so Cryptic removed all the required objectives except in Elite.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    warpangel wrote: »
    asuran14 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    asuran14 wrote: »
    I always found the idea of the optional failing you in the stfs, unless you failed too many (like if you failed two in advanced), was weird though an interesting idea implemented abit too harshly in a broad sense.
    Yeah, no s$%#. That's because the fail conditions weren't optional.

    The fail conditions were one of the best things ever to happen to this game that, thanks to whiners and their "optional" nonsense, were rolled back to autowin again.

    First off chill out. An no they were optional objectives still in the mind of the players, since they never changed the objective text from optional to mandatory as you did the higher content to reflect that change, as such many players just assumed they were still optional. If you make a change that turns a previously optional objective into a mandatory one, than you change the text to reflect that fact.
    I'm pretty sure they DID change the text, but of course it's impossible to confirm now that the fail conditions are long gone.

    I certainly never had any trouble telling which objectives were optional and which ones were not.
    Also I am not against having you auto fail stfs if you miss objectives, but not going from being able to mess all of them an succeed to you miss one optional an it auto fails you within one difficulty rating. An you would have freaking known that if you read the post over going apeshit over part of a post that you took out of context. They should have implemented the auto fail system better, and made it that in normal you can fail all optionals an still finish the stf, then had it that in advanced you needed to succeed at least 2/3d if of the optionals, and finally have elite be you auto fail if you miss even one optional.
    And there we have the other nonsense buzzword "auto fail." What? As opposed to manually failing the mission? What does that even mean?

    Failing a required objective fails the mission. Failing an optional does not. Exactly as it should be. What you describe is how it was, except without using the word "optional." Normal had no required objectives, Advanced had one or two, Elite had more. People complained about the required objectives existing at all, because apparently it's oh so horrible to play a videogame where you might actually lose if you're not good enough. And so Cryptic removed all the required objectives except in Elite.

    No they did not. they left the text in the mission and objective screen as it was largely from prior to Dr. In isa for instance if you let even one of the healing probs heal the gens it would fail the mission (not the objective, but the entire stf), compared to having you being able to have two or three probes hit the gens to fail the mission. Or that in borg disconnect having to explain to the group they had to make sure to save 15 of the coup-ships, since if we did not get the required amount of them in each phase/wave the mission would fail, but in the end have several missions that would fail from players just not paying attention. I remember quite well this from several missions having to explain to the group that it was not a optional objective anymore with the changes.

    No they did not work that way. How thy worked was in normal you could fail any of the objectives an still complete the mission, since all of the mission objective but the final one were optional. In advanced and elite you could not miss even a single objective one, let a regen probe thru the mission fails right there, one of the coup-borg get reassimilated fail. How it should have worked is that normal would stay as it was, advanced should have had the optionals from normal yet allowing you to have a few hiccups (like you could let up to 2 regen probes hit the gen or 2 coup-ships reassimilated), and then with elite you needed to do the mission flawlessly. This is not how it was implemented at all, it was made that the optionals from normal were made mandatory in advanced an had no leniency at all making you have to run the mission flawlessly. If they implemented the system with some leniency in the advanced difficulty in the optionals that were shifted to mandatory, than most likely the shift would not have been so harshly received.

    Also lets just agree to disagree on how the DR changes were done, as we both remember it differently, but in the end we both agree that the changes made during Dr at the start was good for the game. It is just a disagreement of how harsh we felt it was implemented, and honestly you will always have players disagree on that. I would love to see the fail conditions come back, just not how I remember them being implemented in DR.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    The fail conditions were one of the best things ever to happen to this game that, thanks to whiners and their "optional" nonsense, were rolled back to autowin again.

    Fail conditions are a terrible design philosophy for an MMO. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be auto win, but failure should be linked to the realization that the group can't handle the content. I'd much rather see respawns disabled while the group is in combat, with that particular phase of the instance resetting if everyone dies.

    Fail conditions just led to things like this in Borg Disco'd:

    Me: "ok guys don't forget to rescue the Borg"

    Crickets

    Me: "Why am I the only one saving the borg??"

    Crickets

    Me: "WE ARE GOING TO GET A 30 MINUTE LOCKOUT AND NO REWARDS IF YOU DON'T HELP LIBERATE THESE BORG SHIPS!!"

    Crickets

    [Mission failed]
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • lapprenticellapprenticel Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    At present there's exactly 5 missions being played, and 19 with 1 or more people queued. Nobody is queued for or playing Gravity Kills, but to my surprise there actually are folk playing The Tzenkethi Front. I played it when it first came out, but frankly I didn't enjoy it. It's a tough map whose success is heavily dependent on teamwork, and that doesn't happen. True most of my matches did eventually result in victory but the time:reward ratio plus the (lack of) fun factor means I'll only ever play the mission again if it's forced somehow. CCA may not be the most fun mission around, but the time:reward factor makes it worth playing!!! As for those folk commenting about it being over in 15-20 seconds, you either have an exceedingly overpowered ship, you get very lucky with your teams, or you're trolling. I very rarely get 1st place but do get 3rd place frequently enough. While the groups I get matched with usually complete the mission before the counter hits 0 and the optional quest fails it's not always the case. On average I'd say the mission takes about 3-4 minutes (180-240 seconds) to complete. As for the point about making it a 5 man map rather than 10 man map, while that's a very interesting idea I've seen entire teams waiting to respawn. If most players suck so badly that they're dead at the same time would they be capable of doing the mission at all as a 5 man team, especially if you added in HP regen or some of the other suggestions here? Obviously an elite version could be radically different - and I likely wouldn't even attempt an elite version myself, but radical changes to CCA would need to factor in average player skill.

    And since Mirror Invasion was mentioned, that's possibly my favourite map. Sure it doesn't always work - I had one team drop out over the course of the match, and since I couldn't solo the final ship had to quit after 20 or 30 minutes. :s I've also had the odd (Easy?) match where a wave of enemies was dead and you had to twiddle your thumbs for several minutes waiting for the next batch.
    Yes i do find those queues fun. Sorry if my type of fun is not the right type of fun. I know theres a current trend at present where my fun is not the right fun with the space nerfs that are going on Tribble to reduce high dps builds.

    Not everyone enjoys a Grethor timegated type of match, i like missions where my ships build and the builds and skill of the team i play with determines the speed of the map, not artificial timers that prolong the mission.

    So yes to Elite versions of ISA/CCA. A big warp factor 10 NO to changing ISA/CCA normal and advanced.
    I think there is a level of room between Grethor and ISA that would be more reasonable.

    Grethor is relatively harmless in terms of cooldowns, but the gateway closing part is mostly a time filler, with no real challenge.

    But look at the Tzenkethi Queues - They take long, but you don't sit around doing nothing. Particularly the Tzenkethi Fronts seems to have no timegates at all, and you're always kept busy. There is some interesting stuff in how to avoid suffering aggro when you deploy the protomatter bomb, benefitting from good teamwork (or smart crowd control use). There is of course a concealed time gate in the travel time between the spawn place for the protomatter carrying battleships and the bases, but it's not like in Mirror Invasion where you really just stand around for a while.

  • tarran61tarran61 Member Posts: 827 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    If Janeway can blow up Borg cubes with one torp so can we.
    This is getting old.
    Lets just Nerf the ones who are saying everything needs a Nerf!
    Positive thoughts.
    NeAC.gif
  • taylor1701dtaylor1701d Member Posts: 3,099 Arc User
    How about instead of ruining the fundamentals of ISA with half baked hair brained ideas we leave it alone and not ruin more things in this game ?
    How about instead of screaming for more nerfs or whacky mechanic changes (that are only going to hurt the many lesser players rather then the 1% DPS'ers) we instead demand proper Elite, and maybe even Epic difficulty for this great mission, and the others on the queue list ?

    Until we get at least Elite ISA we can't even have this discussion. Period.

    [img][/img]OD5urLn.jpg
  • taylor1701dtaylor1701d Member Posts: 3,099 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    Operation Time Gate

    ISA: Add 3 non-skippable 45 second videos into the mission, one at the beginning, one when destroy the first nanite generator, one when you destroy the last one.

    CCA: Add 3 non-skippable 45 second videos to the mission, one at the beginning, one when you bring the CE to 66 %, and one when you bring it to 33 %.


    :p

    Mustrum "Must come up with more time gates "Ridcully

    You are a sick sick man.
    :mrgreen:
    [img][/img]OD5urLn.jpg
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    edited March 2017
    Where Mirror invasion is concerned I would not mind just a slight revamp to it, where the time gates remained, but that your actions had some effect on the length of the time gate. Making it that reacting the bas's systems, and closing portals at certain amounts would reduce the time-gate even by a maximum of 30 seconds would be nice, but right nwo that even doing this has very little effect on the mission as a whole is off putting.
  • maerikcharonmaerikcharon Member Posts: 108 Arc User
    ISA = Still say, constant feedback pulse for 100% reflection on anything that is supposed to be "immune" to damage Force people to single target things.
  • taylor1701dtaylor1701d Member Posts: 3,099 Arc User
    And not so fast on the rewards being too easy to earn.
    Two days ago I brought my turret build into PUG ISA adv, it took 10-15mins and we failed the optional.
    The rewards were fair in that case !

    If the Devs intended ISA adv to last 10 mins for the average player group, then cut the rewards 80% in the case of the 1-2 min ISA's.

    This illusion that all ISA's are taking 1-2mins is preposterous. I won't dispute that it does happen, especially in channel runs, but PUGs are a gamble in my experience. Could be a 1-2min affair, could be 5, could even be 10 like it was for me the other day and I'm 100% sure a 5k team would take nearly 45mins.

    So don't be so fast to cast generalizations on how fast ISAs are being completed. You have no metrics on how the playerbase stacks up DPS wise.

    I'll also add that ISA has a 30 min cooldown, so you can't even farm it in a conventional way.
    [img][/img]OD5urLn.jpg
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    I'll also add that ISA has a 30 min cooldown, so you can't even farm it in a conventional way.
    With a 30 min cooldown and 1 minute completion time, what are players doing for half an hour? Do people just log out for 29 min? Or is the issue people only play for 1 or 2 minutes a day? Is that something you can fix by forcing players to play "the correct way" by extending the duration to 15 minutes, or nerfing the rewards?
  • lapprenticellapprenticel Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    If you have 30 toons (as I've seen some claim to have) and a 30 minute cooldown, a 60 second match (including load times) would work out rather nicely.
    redvenge wrote: »
    I'll also add that ISA has a 30 min cooldown, so you can't even farm it in a conventional way.
    With a 30 min cooldown and 1 minute completion time, what are players doing for half an hour? Do people just log out for 29 min? Or is the issue people only play for 1 or 2 minutes a day? Is that something you can fix by forcing players to play "the correct way" by extending the duration to 15 minutes, or nerfing the rewards?

  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    The fail conditions were one of the best things ever to happen to this game that, thanks to whiners and their "optional" nonsense, were rolled back to autowin again.

    Fail conditions are a terrible design philosophy for an MMO. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be auto win, but failure should be linked to the realization that the group can't handle the content. I'd much rather see respawns disabled while the group is in combat, with that particular phase of the instance resetting if everyone dies.

    Fail conditions just led to things like this in Borg Disco'd:

    Me: "ok guys don't forget to rescue the Borg"

    Crickets

    Me: "Why am I the only one saving the borg??"

    Crickets

    Me: "WE ARE GOING TO GET A 30 MINUTE LOCKOUT AND NO REWARDS IF YOU DON'T HELP LIBERATE THESE BORG SHIPS!!"

    Crickets

    [Mission failed]
    As opposed to the current state of BDA, in which everything is optional and you will get the rewards just by waiting out the timers without doing anything. Great example.

    I would much rather have put an unlock condition on it (easy enough to have a solo version of the mission with only one position enabled) so the "crickets" would be stuck in Normal where they belong.
Sign In or Register to comment.